Re: [ga] Re: Reform proposal: A democratic DNSO

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ross and all assembly members,

  Ross, we [INEGroup] are in agreement with you as far as the DNSO
GA, as well as the rest of ICANN, including the constituencies, should
be about what is what, not who is who.  Unfortunately the ICANN
Staff and BoD don't seem to want to actually proceed in that
fashion, and frankly from the start in '98, never have. Most of us
that have been here from the beginning know that ICANN is already
Captured, but the old gTLD-MOU group known than as CORE.
This was definitely confirmed in MdR2000...  And sense that
time and even before, things in the DNSO have gone along
that groups agenda ever sense.

  We strongly disagree with you notion that a democratic process
is not  the process that ICANN should be following as in accordance
with the White Paper and the MoU, as well as being the best historically
known process method for some 200 or so years..  Worked pretty
well for the Continental Congress, should work pretty well for
ICANN and the DNSO as well.

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Danny,
>
> I touched on this many moons ago. The principle value that the GA can and
> should be bringing to the table is the informed recommendations that its
> members can make. We also talked about this generally on Thursday. Claiming
> to represent a Public Interest doesn't increase the legitimacy of the
> assembly. This is one of the big areas that the current GA has gotten
> interminably tied up in. In the GA, as with the IETF, its not about who you
> represent, but the ideas that you bring to the table. The ideas that
> eventually result in consensus based recommendations that can be taken
> seriously. This is not about democracy - it never was.
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> To: <ross@tucows.com>; <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>; <james.love@cptech.org>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:31 AM
> Subject: Reform proposal: A democratic DNSO
>
> > Ross, you wrote:  "The GA is not a forum for debating. It is a forum for
> open
> > participation in the work of the DNSO."
> >
> > Sadly, I think you are missing the point... We are in the midst of a
> debate
> > regarding the "evolved" future of the GA within the DNSO.  As such, we
> cannot
> > point to past constructs and declare that they are determinative.
> >
> > Within the DNSO we have two collectivities, the members of special
> interest
> > groups (constituencies) and non-affiliated members (GA participants that
> > represent the voice of the Public Interest).  Currently, no voting rights
> are
> > accorded to those that represent the Public Interest within the DNSO, only
> > lobbyists for special interest groups may vote.  Why should I and my peers
> > that are actively involved in the day-to-day ICANN issues have no voting
> > rights within this policy-recommending organ?  There are certainly as many
> of
> > us in this organization as there are of you... why should we be treated as
> > second-class participants?
> >
> > Our founding documents were predicated on a recognized need for "balance".
> > An "evolved" DNSO should confer voting rights to all that participate in
> this
> > body and should strike a balance between special interest and public
> > interest.  In my view, that would mean that the GA as a collectivity
> should
> > have as many votes as the aggregate of the special interests.
> >
> > An even better approach would be One-person/One-vote, a democratic
> tradition
> > that would serve us well.  Let me ask, what would be your objection to a
> > reorganization based on democratic principles?  Is there any particular
> > reason why the membership of the GA should not be given voting rights?
> What
> > claim do you have to a superior status?
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html